History and SCOTUS

 It's unfair that Republican appointees have dominated the Supreme Court for the last 50 years or so.  Elsewhere I've blamed LBJ for this. 

Currently liberals argue that the court is too conservative.  That's true.  But it's also true that the court has not always been a moderating influence, keeping America on a middle way. Back in the days of the Warren court it was fairly consistently more liberal than the country. IIRC there weren't majorities in the country supporting decisions like Brown, Carr, MIranda.  

It's also worth remembering that people on the right were talking about "Impeach Warren".  So far the liberals today aren't talking about impeachment.

Concerns About Republican Changes to Voting Laws

 One of the things Republicans seem to be doing in several states is changing the law so that somebody can override the count of votes.  In a way they're fighting the last war: in the firm belief that Trump lost because of illegal/fraudulent votes, they're trying to make legal what Trump asked the officials in AZ, PA, GA, and WI to do.

This effort has a lot of Democrats very concerned.  It might be justified.  But I'm in a Pollyanna mood today, so let me outline why it might not be:

• I've not tracked them, but some of the law changes are, I think, occurring in red states, states the Republicans are apt to win in most elections.
• There's a big difference between Monday-morning quarterbacking and the beliefs you develop when you're part of the action. I'm relying on that idea here. In 2022 and 2024 the officials empowered by these changed laws will be active participants in the electoral process.  Hopefully we won't have a pandemic causing late changes to election procedures and laws, which was the big problem undermining Republican acceptance of results in 20S0.  So I'm hoping these officials will feel committed to the process and thus won't be looking and finding the false fraud which would justify their actions.

That's my prediction anyway.

Another Error by Harvard Professor?

 I'm not really picking on Prof. Lepore, not much anyhow. She writes really well. But as I've said before I do enjoy finding errors.  This time it's page 109 of her book "If Then: How the Simultanics Corproation Invented the Future".  She's writing about the dance among Arthur Schlesinger, Jr (another Harvard professor who wrote well), Adlai Stevenson, and JFKennedy in 1960.  Stevenson is vacillating as usual over whether to run for president, and JFK is trying to keep him out, with Schlesinger in the middle. 

In two separate paragraphs she describes meetings between Stevenson and JFK, one on May 21, one in "late May" which was arranged by Schlesinger.  I have to believe it was one meeting, but the way it's written it sounds like two. I suspect she tried to describe the meeting in separate drafts which didn't get cleanly merged. 

I've not finished the book, but am enjoying it, as I remember the maneuvering then, much more fascinating than today's politics.

MFP and CFAP Political Effects

The bottom line of a study trying to assess whether the MFP and CFAP payments resulted in more votes for Trump in 2020:

We find the MFP and CFAP programs generated 677,512 votes for Republican candidate Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election with an estimated cost-per-vote-gained of $66,124

I say it's the bottom line, but the next sentence says the added votes didn't swing any states; rural voters were already pro-Trump. 

Vietnam Photo--Houses

 

How Our View of People Changes

 Over my lifetime many things have changed:

• Eisenhower changed from a middling president to something more, worthy of a monument on the Mall.
• Grant changed from a president presiding over corruption to a protector of black civil rights.
• Sadat changed from a tinpot dictator and Nazi lover to someone who risked and lost his life for peace.
• Bob Dole changed from a partisan hatchet man in the 70s to a well regarded last remnant of the Greatest Generation and a very funny man.
• Ian Paisley went from pope hater to almost a statesman working with the IRA.

I could go on but I think examples show two things: 

1. some people change over their lifetime, both as they change and their environment changes
2. how people are evaluated depends very much on who the evaluators are and what their environment is.

Vietnam Photo-River Scene

 IIRC we went over a bridge or two and by a river on the route from Saigon to Long Binh. Always interesting. 

Bob Dole: Detail Oriented

 When I was hired at ASCS in 1968 I became familiar with the handbook (17-AS) which had the distribution schedules for all ASCS handbooks. There was a form listing all the ASCS offices: state offices, commodity offices, and aerial photo labs, with the quantity to be sent to each.  Some states wanted a skinny distribution, allowing 1 copy per county office and a few for the state; others would allow for multiple copies per county.  Occasionally we have to create a schedule for new printed material, since the same schedule might be used for some related form or pamphlet.  All of that got me familiar with the number of counties (actually county offices) in the states. 

In addition to the preformated schedule, for some handbooks there might be one or two additional offices which wanted a copy for some reason, perhaps OIG, FCIC, or AMS.  The only Congressional office down to receive any handbook was Bob Dole's office, which wanted 25-GR, the designation for the wheat and feed grain programs.   The dedication to detail of the Congressman, or more likely required by him of his policy person, impressed me. 

I hadn't heard of him before joining ASCS, but he was elected to the Senate the next year. 

Estonia and Aautomation

 I like Estonia because of its whole-hearted adopting of e-government, which apparently carries over to other aspects of life.  However it's not all peaches and cream--the embedded tweet links to a gif of the robots:

https://twitter.com/xgebi/status/1466802322600775686?s=20

The morning in the Estonian capital began with a traffic jam of... robot couriers! Because of the snowfall, they stalled and could not move. Innovation doesn't seem to work in winter... pic.twitter.com/z6KHaWRGSK

— Deleuze (@Kukicat7) December 2, 2021

2.9 Billion Not on Internet?

 This report from statistia says there are that many people who aren't on the internet.

Is anyone else stunned by the stat? I'm more astonished by the converse: that means a majority of humans are on the internet, 4.9 billion to be specific.